Patient‐maintained propofol sedation using reaction time monitoring: a volunteer safety study <i>*</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous volunteer studies of an effect-site controlled, patient-maintained sedation system using propofol have demonstrated a risk of over-sedation. We have incorporated a reaction-time monitor into the handset of the patient-maintained sedation system to add an individualised patient-feedback mechanism. This study assessed if such reaction-time feedback modification would reduce the risk of over-sedation in 20 healthy volunteers deliberately attempting to over-administer themselves propofol. All the volunteers successfully sedated themselves without reaching any unsafe endpoints. All volunteers maintained verbal contact throughout, in accordance with the definition of conscious sedation. The mean (SD) lowest S(p) O(2) was 97 (1.7) % when breathing room air and no volunteer required supplementary oxygen. The mean (SD) maximum effect-site propofol concentration reached was 1.7 (0.4) μg.ml(-1) . The present system was found to be safer than its predecessors, allowing conscious sedation, but preventing over-sedation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".